Last December, before Question 1 had even secured a spot on the ballot, the Current called it “an easy yes.” Ten months, one advisory-opinion request and a steady stream of objections later, we still think there’s merit to the proposal to make most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records under state law. But some concerns raised since then, including by our own state representative, merit serious consideration.
Start close to home. As the Current reported recently, Marblehead town departments have fielded more than 80 public records requests so far this year. The school district handled 74 in the 2025-26 school year, up from about 55 the year before. The process is not always smooth, and it is not always free. But it works, and no one at Abbot Hall or on Widger Road argues that answering to the public has made local government impossible.
The governor’s office and the Legislature, by contrast, are largely exempt. Massachusetts is one of only two states where both claim that status. Question 1 would end that status by placing them under the same law that already governs our Select Board, our School Committee and most state agencies, with exemptions for policy development and for certain constituent communications.
State Rep. Jenny Armini, D-Marblehead, told the Current she supports the goal of Question 1 but has “constitutional concerns about its implementation.” Her chief concern is a real one. Because the secretary of the commonwealth, an executive-branch official, enforces the public records law, applying it to the Legislature invites a separation-of-powers fight. The Supreme Judicial Court declined to settle that question in advance, saying it should be decided in actual litigation. That, Armini said, “leaves us with a ballot question that will very likely be tied up in litigation should it pass.”
She may well be right. Our answer: so be it.
Massachusetts residents have waited a long time for their state government to catch up with the rest of the country. When lawmakers overhauled the public records law in 1973, they wrote it to cover state agencies, not the Legislature or the governor’s office, and in 1997 the SJC confirmed that the law does not reach the governor.
In 2016, lawmakers created a special commission to study whether the law should apply to themselves and the governor. When its 2017 deadline arrived, the panel had not yet met. Given another year, its House and Senate members still could not agree on a report. Nothing came of it. Only now, with voters poised to act, is a bill to supersede Question 1 being negotiated on Beacon Hill.
Against that history, the prospect of a court challenge is not a reason to vote no. Litigation is how our system resolves hard constitutional questions, and the SJC has said that is how it will resolve these. Another year or two in court is a small price to pay for finally moving our state government from exempt to accountable.
The Legislature could also defuse the conflict itself by routing appeals of its records decisions to the courts rather than the secretary’s office, a fix suggested by the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University.
Armini’s second concern deserves equal care. Constituents contact their representatives about intensely personal matters: a child’s struggles, a medical bill, a family crisis. Question 1 exempts communications about obtaining government benefits or services or dealing with a government agency, but Armini worries that leaves out residents who seek advice or help on other problems. The Tufts analysts also note that the exemption may not protect someone who writes to a lawmaker other than their own, and it does not expressly cover the governor’s office.
No resident should hesitate to ask for help out of fear that a letter will end up in the newspaper. But these are drafting problems, not fatal flaws. The existing law already shields records whose release would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and records officers routinely redact names and sensitive details, just as Marblehead’s own departments do. Where gaps remain, the Legislature can close them; like most ballot laws, Question 1 can be amended without returning to voters. If Armini files such a bill, we would be inclined to support it.
What we cannot support is letting imperfection become a reason for inaction. In 2024, voters overwhelmingly approved letting the state auditor audit the Legislature. That effort remains stalled. Voters cannot expect lawmakers to open their own books unprompted.
Question 1 is not a cure-all, for Beacon Hill or for the public records law generally. Its exemptions are broad. And the law it extends has long been called toothless. A 2016 overhaul helped, setting firm response deadlines and letting requesters who win in court recover attorneys’ fees, but the secretary’s office still must turn to the attorney general to enforce its orders, and delays and steep fees remain common.
Strengthening that law is work for another day. What Question 1 would do is put the governor and the Legislature under the same rules as everyone else, opening contracts, spending records, settlement agreements and calendars to public view for the first time.
That is why support here crosses party lines. Emily DeJoy of the Marblehead Republican Town Committee told the Current that residents “deserve meaningful transparency and accountability,” and Democratic Town Committee Chair Anne Gugino Carrigan backs the measure, too.
So do we. Vote yes on Question 1.
